Advocating Through the Computer Screen: Best Practices for Effective Remote Advocacy
| Author | Mark A. Drummond |
| Pages | 28-29 |
Published in Litigation News Volume 45, Number 4, Summer 20 20. © 2020 by the Ameri can Bar Association. Re produced with per mission. All rights re served. This info rmation or any porti on thereof may not be c opied or disseminated in any
form or by any means or sto red in an electronic da tabase or retrieval sy stem without the ex press writt en consent of the Amer ican Bar Associatio n.
By Hon. Mark A . Drummond (Ret.), Litigatio n News Associate Editor
I
am writing th is column in my “home ofce,” which is
our dining roo m table. The world outside has change d.
Keeping my social d istance, I can jaywalk across Fi fth
Avenue at almost any point and not worr y about get-
ting hit by a cab.
Our legal world also ha s changed. The pandemic has accel -
erated our turn to te chnology. During the past two weeks, I
have reviewed admin istrative orders from federal and state
courts throu ghout the country. To a one, they encourage
judges to embrace technolog y to provide access to justice.
I also have been working w ith an ABA Section of Litigation
partner, the Nation al Institute for Trial Advocacy (N ITA),
on best practice s for remote hearings and trials. N ITA part-
ners with us each yea r to provide the case le and many of the
instructor s for our legal services train ing program.
My wife and I have been “shelteri ng at home.” She has 30
years of experienc e in television news. She is an expert at lo ok-
ing into a camera and c ommunicating. She joined me for two
NITA webinars o n remote advocacy. Here are the highlights.
Be Reasonable
The case I wil l start with has traveled far. I heard about
it from an advocacy tra iner in York, England, who had
Advocating Through the Computer
Screen: Best Practices for Effective
Remote Advocacy
received it from a justice i n Tasmania who might have read
it in the ABA Jo urnal onl ine. The case was in Chicago. It
involved allegedly counte rfeit “unicorn drawi ngs.”
The plaintif f’s counsel led a temporary restra ining order.
Due to the pandemic , the court moved the hearing out a
“few weeks.” Counsel led a mot ion to reconsider the sched-
uling order and anot her motion with an “emergency judge,”
which then caused t he chief judge to get involved.
The motion to reconsider was de nied with this admonition:
“The ling c alls to mind the sage words of Elihu Root: ‘About
half of the practic e of law of a decent lawyer is telling would-
be clients that the y are damned fools and should stop.’”
The denit ion of “emergency” has narrowed d rastically
for all courts . We do owe a duty to our clients to advance
their cases. S o get your client’s case in line to be resolved.
But trying to cut i n line at this time for a non-emergenc y
matter is not in the cl ient’s best interest . Pick your battles
and be reasonable.
Be Prepared
Your home has become your ofce. W hatever table you
are using at home is couns el table in your virtual court .
Attorneys do them selves and their client s a disservice i f they
© NickyLloyd / Ge tty Images
28 | SECTION OF LITIGATIO N
PRACTICE POINTS
To continue reading
Request your trial